>Getting ideas approved? Isn't that what voting is for?
>Twinkling can be
>considered an informal straw poll mechanism but it has little
>process or
>recognition of minority votes. I wouldn't object to twinkling in the
>abstract if it wasn't tied to the resistance to basic rules of
>procedure in
>voting.
I think we're broadly in agreement here. Twinkling good, (some) twinklers bad?
One needs a way for a meeting to weed out obviously duff ideas without having to vote on every passing thought.
Equally, insistence on consensus (or worse still, resistance to definite rules of procedure at all) deprives the minority of the right to have its dissent recorded.
And likewise I'm sympathetic to Chuck's comment that
>Umm, it's just twinkling. This practice, which isn't used by everybody
>at a meeting, is a pretty good way to get the vibe of how people are
>thinking about a proposal. It's better to see half the room twinkling
>than to see no reaction at all. It helps the facilitator know
>when it is
>time to take a straw poll or a final vote on a proposal.
<snip>
>THe other important thing about this process is that is has
>good methods
>to simply stop bad proposals from being passed for the sake of
>efficiency or because people want to go home.
On the other hand, while it's true that
>Consensus decision-making is an empowering process that aims to get
>everybody involved in the process. Traditional forms are much better at
>encouraging the leader-follower hierarchy.
I think one has to recognise that both have substantial scope for abuse (conscious or otherwise) by the crafty and manipulative.
>Yes, we want to get good ideas promoted, but what's the hurry?
>Consensus
>decision-making, when used properly, is the best method of weeding out
>bad ideas. It may not be fast, but I would take quality over hastiness
>any day of the week.
Fine -- when there's time. But one doesn't always have the luxury of deciding one's timetable -- sometimes one's opponents have that advantage.
Julian